Find a Lawyer

versus

Sections 133 (5) and 136 (6) amend the assessment in relation to the High Court scope regulation (repealed) with respect to section 136 (6) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and section 133 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. Under section 136 (6) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the High Court's distinction, the tribunal had to pass an order where it was necessary to settle the case as per the High Court decision. While the tribunal was not required to pass any order under section 133 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, it would be amended according to the order of the tribunal according to the decision made under the High Court order under the law. Even the Tribunal has no option to comment. The banned ordinance was merely an administrative order that told the parties that, pointing to the essential effect of the decisions of the High Court, the Tribunal order should be applied in accordance with the decision of the High Court. The order sent by the court was required to be kept only in the relevant file which the High Court passed as the order was self-explanatory. The parties concerned were bound by the decision.

Related judgments — Inland, 2013

• Malik FURRUKH v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL), RAWALPINDI 2013 PTD 1265
• MOTORCYCLE ZONE SHOP, SARGODHA v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS), RTO, FAISALABAD 2013 PTD 1283
• 2013 PTD 1288 2013 PTD 1288
• PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LIMITED, ISLAMABAD v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-II), ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1290
• UNIQUE ENTERPRISES, RAWALPINDI v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1300
• TOYOTA RAWAL MOTORS, RAWALPINDI v. C.I.R., L.T.U., ISLAMABAD 2013 PTD 1309
• 2013 PTD 1313 2013 PTD 1313
• C.I.R., ZONE-II, R.T.O., MULTAN v. Khawaja BASHIR AHMAD & CO., MULTAN 2013 PTD 1319

All Inland judgments of 2013 →

family advocate from Machi Goth lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes